Sanctions against two attorneys who insist that former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld caused the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks have been upheld by a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that refused to disqualify itself from the case.

Dennis Cunningham and co-counsel William W. Veale were ordered on Feb. 2 to pay a total of $15,000 in addition to double what the government spent defending against their lawsuit.

In addition, the judges in Gallop v. Cheney, 10-1241-cv, ordered Mr. Cunningham to notify federal courts in the circuit about the sanctions against him when appearing before them for the next year.

In 2011, Messrs. Cunningham and Veale were found liable for what the same judges—Ralph K. Winter (See Profile), John W. Walker Jr. (See Profile) and Jose Cabranes (See Profile)—ruled was a frivolous appeal after a decision by Southern District Judge Denny Chin (See Profile) dismissing April Gallop's complaint as "cynical delusion and fantasy" (NYLJ, April, 28, 2011).

Ms. Gallop was a member of the U.S. Army who was injured in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

She claimed that the Pentagon was not hit by a hijacked airliner but, rather, that she was injured by an explosion from within the building that was detonated at the behest of Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials who allegedly sought to use 9/11 to justify launching a war against radical Muslims.

The most recent Second Circuit decision arose from the lawyers' motion filed in November to disqualify the judges and for a rehearing of Ms. Gallop's case.

The lawyers argued that the judges had exhibited "severe bias" against them that was motivated by "active personal emotions," in part stemming from exposure to the terror attacks.

The judges rejected that argument, as it had a previous attempt to disqualify them.

"We conclude that Cunningham acted in bad faith in demanding the recusal of the three panel members and any like-minded colleagues," the circuit panel said in an unanimous, unsigned ruling.

The panel ruled that its sanctions against Messrs. Cunningham and Veale should stand. However, based on Mr. Cunningham's claim that he was the "decider" on the Gallop legal team, the circuit ruled that co-counsel Mustapha Ndanusa of Brooklyn should not face any penalties.

Mr. Cunningham, of Walnut Creek, Calif., did not respond to calls for comment.

Mr. Veale, a former chief assistant public defender for Contra Costa County, Calif., told Thomson Reuters, "We are not delusional by any means. We have the facts, and they cannot be explained."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Alicia Simmons defended Mr. Cheney and other Bush administration officials in the case. Jerika Richardson, a spokeswoman for the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office, said the office would have no comment.

The Second Circuit panel appointed Eastern District Judge Brian M. Cogan (See Profile) to ensure the court-ordered sanctions are complied with.

The panel ordered Messrs. Cunningham and Veale to conform to the monetary penalties within 30 days.

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.More generally, "plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electric shock, waterboarding or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving few or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.

Sociopathy is the NORM and LYING is well rewarded - The sophistication of 9/11 and the obvious planning that went into it would be hard to recreate by a team of the finest minds and engineers, yet somehow the people easily lap up the lie a bunch of barely intelligent muslims pulled it off with a few box cutters!

Clearly 9/11 didnt go down exactly as the feds said. But there isnt enough evidence for me to come to the conclusion it was our own government that did it. Feds never tell the public the whole truth.

Many times the public does not NEED to know the whole truth (obviously not saying if 9/11 was executed by the feds we shouldnt know, Im just saying in many cases the general public cant handle the honest truth of what goes on behind closed doors to keep the world rolling). Others will disagree with me on that last statement, but it is true.

If not by focusing on the individuals, what other way can it be approached?

How can we possibly pretend to know who was involved and who wasnt? You can make accusations, but really, the people more than likely directly involved are people who's names you've never heard of, people that dont have names, people who reside in offices in dark corners of buildings you've never heard of. People that dont have term limits, that have their own rules and procedures, people who the politicians don't question and don't pretend to want to know about, people that they (the politicians) don't want to have to even acknowledge their existance.

Its easy to blame the President, the SecDef, the VP, etc, but in reality they had very little, if anything, to do with a scheme like this. Really, militarily speaking, they're just yes men that sit in an office and say yes/no. Ever heard of plausible deniability?

How can we possibly pretend to know who was involved and who wasnt? You can make accusations, but really, the people more than likely directly involved are people who's names you've never heard of, people that dont have names, people who reside in offices in dark corners of buildings you've never heard of. People that dont have term limits, that have their own rules and procedures, people who the politicians don't question and don't pretend to want to know about, people that they (the politicians) don't want to have to even acknowledge their existance.

Its easy to blame the President, the SecDef, the VP, etc, but in reality they had very little, if anything, to do with a scheme like this. Really, militarily speaking, they're just yes men that sit in an office and say yes/no. Ever heard of plausible deniability?

I'm sure you know that the President and the Secretary of Defense mutually hold the top of the command chain.

Hypothetically speaking, if you will, the holders of such power would be absolutely required as tools for such an undertaking to have its greatest chance of success. So a person cannot possibly claim to have studied the situation without looking squarely at these two individuals.

I'm sure you know that the President and the Secretary of Defense mutually hold the top of the command chain.

Hypothetically speaking, if you will, the holders of such power would be absolutely required as tools for such an undertaking to have its greatest chance of success. So a person cannot possibly claim to have studied the situation without looking squarely at these two individuals.

As I said, its easy to level accusations against those at the top just because theyre at the top. But in this case, I would say youre solely mistaken to blindly make the assumption that these 2 were at the head of your CT, just because of who they were. Things go on all the time behind the backs of the top people in the WH, often so that they literally dont have to know whats going on, and there is no way that either of your assumed targets were capable of dreaming up something like this.

As I said, its easy to level accusations against those at the top just because theyre at the top. But in this case, I would say youre solely mistaken to blindly make the assumption that these 2 were at the head of your CT, just because of who they were. Things go on all the time behind the backs of the top people in the WH, often so that they literally dont have to know whats going on, and there is no way that either of your assumed targets were capable of dreaming up something like this.

Have you studied the actions these two men took that morning, Shockwave?

The way the buildings fell does seem like a controlled demolition to me.

If it was an inside job, it was masterfully crafted. Bin laden and al Qaeda had been planning a similar attack for over a decade. And of course he would take credit for it when the united states blamed him, they did the work for him. Al Qaeda long desired to pull America into multiple middle east conflicts. It's a part of their plan to install a worldwide Islamic caliphate. But why America would have wanted this to happen? I can only think that it would have been for the massive war contracts to Halliburton and such, which Cheney and co could profit from. Any other reasons don't make sense to me.

It is hard to me to understand that there really is people stupid enough for that missile -theory, because it has to be the most stupid theory in the history of mankind, and there is no doubt about that. I know I will regret this question, but do you know why that theory is insane? Let me explain:

First of all is what we has seen. There was security cam at the driving gate, which shows us glimpse about the aeroplane, and the great burst of flames while jet fuel ignite. There is lots of talk about hundreds of security cams around the pentagon area, but foil hats has never been able to point out even one of them, so there is only this one piece of video. What we really see in that? It shot frame by every four seconds or something like that, and quality is crappy, but we see pentagon wall, hit and the flames. While you know how tall building is, you are able to measure how tall the flames were, and by that you can estimate how much jet fuel burn in that burst. It is really simple, you need a x gallons of fuel to make fireball wide as xx yards. For example, like fireball like that which video frames proves to be a fact, you need few metric tons of jet fuel. Are you still with me? Have you understand, that there is laws of physic which are ruling in situations like this, and which will force things to fallow each other, because there is no other way. So, if I need to do fireball with the radius of 30 yards, I need some exact amount of jet fuel to do that, because of the laws of physics.

So, what kind of missile hit the pentagon? These foil hat morons say it was a missile, but what kind of missile? There is few hundred types of missiles, but they have one common flaw for situations like this, because most of them are really small. For example, average cruise missile is only 5 meters long, and that is like 15 feet's. These missiles are only ones which can fly like an aeroplane, while other ones are so called ballistic missiles. These you shot from the point a to point b, and they fly in their ballistic path like bullets. Some of these are quite big, like 10 to 15 meters long, meaning about 45ft. There has never been big missiles with wings, not any kind, never and nowhere.

So, what is the point of all this? 757 which eye witnesses see flying and hitting the pentagon is 47 meters long(155ft), and 14 meters high (44ft )from the ground. Cruise missile is 15ft long and 4ft high. How exactly you can mix these two, if you see one? Really? There is thousands of eye witnesses who see the passenger jet, and many of them were able to tell even the company which colours plane have. Fuck them, who needs the witnesses? There was also 145ft wide path of fallen lamp post in the front of the impact zone, but fuck that too. Who cares, when there is more interest things to ask?

Please explain how this about 15ft long cruise missile is able to carry 8 tons of jet fuel? There is physical evidence which proves that there was about 8 tons of burning jet fuel, so there has to be a way to carry that amount to the place of impact. How that was done? Furthermore, there is bunch of high-res pictures about the pentagon, taken right after the hit, while emergency grew was in it's work. In those pictures we are able to see the impact point, and walls at the sides. There is impact marks which are same as 757 wing span, so what kind of missile we are talking about? It has 145ft wing span, it is able to carry 8 tons of jet fuel, it didn't have any warhead at all. Instead of warhead, it leaves pieces of 757 in the lawn of the pentagon, some pieces of landing gear, motor and shit like that, but there wasn't any explosion what so ever.

You see it in those pictures, there wasn't any flying debris from the building, it all went inwards, like some great force has been pushing towards the building. Outside there were only pieces of the wings etc. which burst in the pieces in the impact. In those photos is lot of interesting things, and that's why foil hats doesn't show them to you. There is pieces of the fuselage clearly visible, pieces of wings, parts of the plane, but not even a smallest sign about the missile. That is a pity, because I really want to see missile like that? 8 tons of fuel, fake wings, carrying plane parts etc. and of course pieces of the passengers which were on flight 77.

Instead of this futile nonsense, name that explosive which can bring down WTC 1 & 2 without any marks or evidence of the explosions. What you guys seem to be unable to understand, there is some physics involved in any kind of explosion. 1. there has to be some explosion like burst of energy 2. there has to be some kind of shock wave 3. there has to be lot of audio evidence, because the burst of energy has to be supersonic even to call it explosion. When we look at the video about the collapse, there isn't even broken windows, so how this is possible? It is possible only if there hasn't been any shock wave, no burst of energy faster than the speed of sound, which means there can't be any explosion what so ever. There can't be any thermite, because it's massive heat which make it shine brighter than sun, and there isn't any evidence what so ever about the thermite or any kind of explosions. No columns with the marks of melting, no columns with the marks showing that they has been cut by explosives. Do you understand what it means? Towers went down because of the hit of the aeroplanes and fire made by the hits. Therefore all claims which try to tell you otherwise, is bullshit. Don't take my word for it, but please, prove that I am wrong by naming one single explosive which can lay in fire up to 56 minutes, and then detonate by the plan. Just one. No more, no less. I know you can't do it, and that is a fact. All explosives are based on chemical compounds, and all chemicals are highly reactive to fire. In fact, there isn't any explosive which doesn't react with fire, so how it could be possible install some in the area, which is going to be target of the plane crash, massive fire by the jet fuel etc. ? There simpy is no way in hell to make that happen.

Doorway on the right is at least 2.1 meters high, so regarding that, this damage is at least 15 x 15 meters, and it is made by fuselage only. Marks made by wings are visible on both sides of the damage, and width of the marks is equal to the wingspan of the plane. Furthermore, if attack to the twin towers cannot possible be inside job, how this can be? There isn't even one single evidence to prove even just single fact about the conspiracy theory, so your speculation is complete bullshit.

And you prove it by what? Official theory has all the evidence it needs to be truth, but where is all the evidence from foil hat morons? There is none. Not even one, do you understand? There is 0 evidence, nothing whatsoever. Only claims and lies. For example, look at the 9/11 videos and point out just one real explosion, with the shockwave at the speed more than 1000 meters per second. Just one. You would be first man in the mankind able to do so. And still all the foil hat morons claim that twin towers were victime of controlled demolition by explosives? Explosions with no shockwave, no flash, no bang whatsoever, not even braking windows? What kind of explosion is that? All explosives make shockwave which travels supersonic speed, usually many times faster than the speed of sound, up to 15000 meters per second, and you fucking hear that sound, because debris flyes with the equal speed, braking sound barrier. Not it the WTC, where is no sound, no shockwave, not any kind of blast, no flying debris, no braking windows, not any sign about the explosion not in the building, and not in the rubble after collapse. That my friend, is against every fucking law of physics which all those visible and audio evidence are based on. Try to explain that by your own words? Thermite, nanothermite? Yes, but where is those tons of 3000°C liguid metal which is spakling like hell and brighter than sun? Where all that goes?

And you prove it by what? Official theory has all the evidence it needs to be truth, but where is all the evidence from foil hat morons? There is none. Not even one, do you understand? There is 0 evidence, nothing whatsoever. Only claims and lies. For example, look at the 9/11 videos and point out just one real explosion, with the shockwave at the speed more than 1000 meters per second. Just one. You would be first man in the mankind able to do so. And still all the foil hat morons claim that twin towers were victime of controlled demolition by explosives? Explosions with no shockwave, no flash, no bang whatsoever, not even braking windows? What kind of explosion is that? All explosives make shockwave which travels supersonic speed, usually many times faster than the speed of sound, up to 15000 meters per second, and you fucking hear that sound, because debris flyes with the equal speed, braking sound barrier. Not it the WTC, where is no sound, no shockwave, not any kind of blast, no flying debris, no braking windows, not any sign about the explosion not in the building, and not in the rubble after collapse. That my friend, is against every fucking law of physics which all those visible and audio evidence are based on. Try to explain that by your own words? Thermite, nanothermite? Yes, but where is those tons of 3000°C liguid metal which is spakling like hell and brighter than sun? Where all that goes?